News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Mold may switch to non-commercial-only license. Parent comment

Re:Mold may switch to non-commercial-only license by bb88 on Sunday November 13, 2022 @05:07PM (#33587880)
> My understanding of AGPL is that Amazon wouldn't even have to open source their service. So the license is not in the way of commercial exploitation.

There's no linking exception in the AGPL. As Google says, the risk is clear.

    "The primary risk presented by AGPL is that any product or service 
     that depends on AGPL-licensed code, or includes anything copied 
     or derived from AGPL-licensed code, may be subject to the virality 
     of the AGPL license. [1]"
IANAL, but some will go further and say that merely looking at AGPL code would be enough to trigger the license, since at some point you could "derive" things from the AGPL'd code base which could then taint every other closed source SaaS project you work on.

This could happen if you wrote an closed source alternative to the original AGPL'd project, and wondered how a particular algorithm was written, e.g.

[1] https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mold may switch to non-commercial-only license by bccdee on Sunday November 13, 2022 @05:18PM (#33587982)
Using mold to link your binaries is not the same as linking mold itself. GCC is GPL'ed, but things compiled with GCC are not.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mold may switch to non-commercial-only license by spijdar on Sunday November 13, 2022 @05:27PM (#33588045)
I think it's worth pointing out that regardless of what is true or not true, Google has spelled out their interpretation, and their explicit and (exact quote) "aggressively-broad ban" on use of AGPL software within Google.

Beyond the legal implications of software, there are social ones too. I admit that I'm reluctant to use AGPL software when a differently licensed alternative is available, just out of a general stigma around it. I'm not defending that stigma, far from it, but I think it's fair to point it out, and point out that big corporations like Google are very, very allergic to AGPL (whether it's legally warranted or not)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mold may switch to non-commercial-only license by bccdee on Sunday November 13, 2022 @10:18PM (#33589886)
AGPL only differs from GPL with regard to services provided over networks, which doesn't really apply here. Beyond that, AGPL is no more viral than GPL. So "there's no linking exception in the AGPL" is really irrelevant considering that there isn't one in GPL either, and I'm sure Google uses GCC.

Yes, there's a stigma against AGPL, but a blanket policy against using AGPL'ed software will occasionally ban something totally unproblematic, which is the case here.

[ Parent | on HN ]